Back
2017 Supreme(Bom) 2480
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT GOA
N.M. JAMDAR, NUTAN D. SARDESSAI, JJ.
Mahesh Navelkar, (since deceased) – Appellant
Versus
Goa State C-operative Bank Ltd. – Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO.624 OF 2006
Decided on : 08-11-2017
For the Appellant :Mr. S.S. Kantak, Senior Advocate with Mr. Preetam Talaulkar & Ms. Falcao Reis, Advocates
For the Respondent:Mr. S.R. Rivonkar, Mr. A. F. Diniz, & Mr. H.D. Naik, Mr. P.P. Singh, Advocate
The importance of timely action under Rule 22(14) to challenge a Sale Certificate and the sanctity of a concluded Sale Certificate.
Headnote:
Sale Certificate - Recovery of Loan - Multi-State Co-operative Societies (Privileges, Properties and Funds, Accounts, Audit, Winding up and Execution of Decrees Orders and Decisions) Rules, 1985 - Rule 22
Fact of the Case:
The Petitioner, a borrower of the Respondent No.1 Bank, challenged the Sale Certificate and Award issued due to failure to repay the loan. The Petitioner alleged lack of notice and illegal actions by the Bank.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the Petitioner had knowledge of the auction proceedings and the Sale Certificate, and the challenge was barred by laches. The Court emphasized the importance of timely action under Rule 22(14) and dismissed the Writ Petition.
Issues: The main issue was whether the Petitioner had knowledge of the auction proceedings and the opportunity to challenge the Sale Certificate under Rule 22(14).
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the Petitioner's claim of lack of knowledge was not believable, and the challenge was barred by laches. It emphasized the importance of timely action under Rule 22(14) and the sanctity of a Sale Certificate.
Final Decision: The Writ Petition was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.
N.M. Jamdar, J.
The Petitioner, a borrower of the Respondent No.1 Bank has called in question the Sale Certificate dated 22 September 2000 and the Award dated 19 February 1998. The Award had to be passed and the Sale Certificate had to be issued because of failure of the Petitioner to repay the loan taken from the Respondent Bank.
2. The Petitioner, as stated earlier, is the borrower of the Respondent No.1 Bank. Smt. Nirupa Pawar, the Respondent No.5 has now purchased the property in question from the Respondent Bank.
3. On 16 May 1996, the Respondent Bank had sanctioned a loan of Rs. 9500000/-to the Petitioner for construction and land development on the property being Plot D-1 of the larger property known as “Mallans”, admeasuring 65000 sq. metres, surveyed under No.26/2 of Village Bainguinim, Tiswadi Taluka. The loan was availed by the Petitioner, however, the Petitioner failed to repay the amount. The Respondent Bank approached the Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Goa raising a dispute in respect of non-payment of loan by the Petitioner. The dispute was numbered as Case No.ARCS/HQ/CC/ABN-21/97-98/475 The Petitioner, as Promoter of M/s. Highland Developers, and the two sureties, were joined as party Respondents. The notice issued by the Registrar on the address of the Petitioner, was served and the Petitioner remained present. Their sureties did not attend the proceedings. The Petitioner verified the documents such as Agreement for Sale, Demand Promissory Note, Final Notices, Statement of Loan Account at the hearing. The Petitioner admitted the claim of the Respondent Bank in writing and prayed for installments. In view of the clear admission of the Petitioner in writing, the Assistant Registrar disposed of the dispute by directing the Petitioner and the sureties to pay the amount of Rs.13204617/-, together with interest at the rate of 22% per annum, from 1 January 1998 till settlement. The learned Assistant Registrar passed the award on 19 February 1998.
4. Since the Petitioner did not approach the Respondent Bank for any installments, nor paid the amount due, the property was put to auction on 21 February 2000. The Respondent Bank purchased the property for Rs.22387000/- and the Sale Certificate was issued in favour of the Respondent Bank on 22 September 2000. The Respondent Bank closed the account of the Petitioner and called for tender on 25 March 2006 of the Property for the purpose of sale. The bid submitted by the Respondent Purchaser was accepted by the Respondent Bank. A Sale Deed in favour of the Respondent-Purchaser was executed on 6 June 2006 and possession was handed over to the Respondent Purchaser on 7 June 2006.
5. In the year 2006, the Petitioner took an objection in respect of the auction, as well as the sale certificate, contending that the Petitioner was not aware of the grant of sale certificate, as no notice was given to the Petitioner. Since the Respondent Bank did not furnish the relevant documents to the Petitioner, the Petitioner filed a Writ Petition in this Court, which was disposed of and the Respondent Bank furnished the relevant documents. The Petitioner, thereafter, filed the present Petition on 22 December 2006, challenging the auction dated 20 February 2000 and Sale Certificate dated 22 September 2000.
6. We have heard Mr. S.S.Kantak, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners, Mr S.R. Rivonkar, learned Counsel for the Respondents No.1-Bank and 3, Mr. A. F. Diniz, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent No.5-Purchaser and Mr. P.P. Singh, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent No.6-Reserve Bank of India.
7. Mr. Kantak, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted : The Petitioner was not aware of the Auction and grant of Sale Certificate. The Petitioner came to know of the same in the year 2006 when the Petitioner came across the public notice in the newspaper for sale of the Property. It is that time the Petitioner became aware that the property wa
